State v. Soto-Valdez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAMIRO ULISES SOTO-VALDEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 11-0076 DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/08/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-163164-003 DT The Honorable Colleen L. French, Commissioner AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Gaffney Law Offices By Robert Gaffney Attorneys for Appellant Scottsdale T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). (defendant) has advised Counsel for Ramiro Ulises Soto-Valdez us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting Anders review of the record. this court conduct an Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 While victim was leaving a central Phoenix business with his wife, he was pushed at gunpoint by one of defendant s accomplice driving. into the green Lincoln Town car defendant was Defendant had followed victim s car to the business parking lot where victim was then kidnapped. A few blocks away from the scene, victim was moved into a white to the call truck with additional kidnappers. ¶3 Patrol officers responded from wife. Defendant saw police in front of him at an intersection, turned into a parking lot, and bailed out of his vehicle. defendant and his accomplices into custody. handguns and a rifle in the car. Victim s Police took Police found two wife identified defendant and the two accomplices as the ones who committed the kidnapping. ¶4 Meanwhile, victim was held in a room in a house in West Phoenix, blindfolded, with his arms and wrists tied behind his back and his ankles tied together. His captors attempted to 2 strangle him with a rope and placed a plastic bag on his head. Victim was beaten and verbally abused in order to obtain victim s family s cell phone numbers, while being told that his family was being held hostage. The kidnappers also put an empty gun pulled to victim s temple and the trigger. Victim s brother-in-law received calls asking for a ransom of $40,000 and an open title for victim s vehicle in exchange for victim s safe release. ¶5 When asked by a police officer if he was involved in the kidnapping, defendant nodded his head as if he acknowledged it. He also admitted that Lincoln handgun. Town car and that he was the driver of the he had been in possession green of a Following the instructions given to victim s brother- in-law, police went to the drop location and took some of the additional accomplices into custody. An accomplice led police to the house where victim was detained. Police found guns, ropes, zip ties, plastic bags, and ammunition in the house. ¶6 Defendant was charged with one count of kidnapping, a class 2 dangerous felony, one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, a class 2 dangerous felony, one count of theft by extortion, a class 2 dangerous felony, one count of aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony, one count of aggravated assault, a class 6 dangerous felony, and one count of misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 dangerous felony. 3 The trial court granted a directed verdict of acquittal as to the two counts of aggravated assaults involving weapons. and dismissed the count of misconduct After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on the kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping and theft by extortion charges. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggravated term of twenty years in prison for the kidnapping, a presumptive term of ten and one-half years in prison for the conspiracy to commit kidnapping and a presumptive term of ten and one-half years in prison for the conviction, to be served concurrently. theft by extortion Defendant received 478 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), obligations in this appeal are at an end. 4 defendant s counsel s ¶8 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge /s/ ___________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
